Wednesday, December 30, 2015
- EEOC: New resource document issued: “Questions and Answers for Employers: Responsibilities Concerning the Employment of Individuals Who Are, or Are Perceived to Be, Muslim or Middle Eastern”
- EEOC: New resource document issued: “Questions and Answers for Employees: Workplace Rights of Employees Who Are, or Are Perceived to Be, Muslim or Middle Eastern
- US District Court ME: In denying motion to dismiss harassment, retaliation, and constitutional claims brought by former nurse at the Maine State Prison against the DOC and nurse’s direct employer, the court held, in part, that the complaint sufficiently alleged a “joint employer” relationship for purposes of Title VII, the MHRA, and the MWPA, and that allegations of daily offensive racially derogatory remarks—made by state employees at a state-operated facility— involve a matter of public concern warranting First Amendment protection
- US District Court ME: In granting Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss age discrimination complaint, the court held that mere allegation that termination was because of age was not “plausible on its face” without supporting factual allegations, and inference of age discrimination was undercut by the fact that plaintiff was hired in his late 50s and terminated at age 64
- US District Court ME: In denying motion for summary judgment on ADA and MHRA disability discrimination claims, the court found sufficient evidence that plaintiff was “qualified” despite request for indefinite leave extension where employer told plaintiff he needed to be off all medications before returning to work
- First Circuit: In affirming dismissal of § 1983 Due Process claim that employer failed to provide an adequate “name-clearing” forum, the court held that complaint did not allege all five of the elements of the claim, which are: (1) the alleged defamatory statement must seriously damage the employee’s standing and association in the community; (2) the employee must dispute the statement as false; (3) the statement must have been intentionally publicized by the government; (4) the stigmatizing statement must have been made in conjunction with an alteration of the employee’s legal status, such as the termination of his employment; and (5) the government must have failed to comply with the employee’s request for a name-clearing hearing
